Posted on 10/13/2009 7:45:31 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer personally attacks opposing parties and disrespects the integrity of the judiciary, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer recklessly accuses a judge of violating the Judicial Code of Conduct with no supporting evidence beyond her dissatisfaction with the judge’s rulings, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice.
-snip-
Regrettably, the conduct of counsel Orly Taitz has crossed these lines, and Ms. Taitz must be sanctioned for her misconduct. After a full review of the sanctionable conduct, counsel’s conduct leading up to that conduct, and counsel’s response to the Court’s show cause order, the Court finds that a monetary penalty of $20,000.00 shall be imposed upon counsel Orly Taitz as punishment for her misconduct, as a deterrent to prevent future misconduct, and to protect the integrity of the Court. Payment shall be made to the United States, through the Middle District of Georgia Clerk’s Office, within thirty days of today’s Order. If counsel fails to pay the sanction due, the U.S. Attorney will be authorized to commence collection proceedings.
(Full Order at the link.)
Yeah, I had a feeling it was the most awesomest conspiracy ever. Now I know.
And I thought those extraterrestrial lizards under the Denver Airport were scary!
LOL. I had agreed several times to his premise and then attempted to negotiate proof.
A thing can be a thing and still be true or real without proof is as far as he wanted to go.
He never wants to take the next step and verify, prove or test a thing to see if it is a fact.
Honestly, the only reason I post to him is JR says he is a good guy. I think he is genuinely stunted in logical proof and examination of thing, why the thing exists and its component parts that make it whole.
So I guess we are stuck with “Faith”. I believe God exist and yet I cannot prove it, so I take in on Faith that he does.
I also have not been to Africa but have factual evidence of it’s existence as I also have the same of Pluto.
Oh well.
Pluto is in possible danger, of being demoted from planetary status, to a mere planetoid.
The status accepted as fact for quite some time, may not in fact be factual.
It seems there are eligibility requirements for planets, and Pluto is perhaps something less than required.
So, if one were to say that Pluto is a planet, would that be a fact, or a fallacy? Does the length of time, that Pluto's status as a planet has not been questioned, alter the fact, one way or the other?
To paraphrase the "logic" of certain replies on this thread, "why, the claim that Pluto is a planetoid is of such recent vintage! Where were these claims, back when Pluto was first discovered?"
Pluto was demoted in January. I felt bad for Mickey Mouse and thought it was Goofy thing to do!
I had thought the eligibility requirement was the body must spin and have a moon to qualify.
But, I have been out of High School for 30 years.
I think it would be more accurate to say simply that Pluto exists as the judging panel cannot deny it’s existence only its status of categorization.
Still it seems unfair. Pluto seemed nice enough. Never bothered me.
lol
Status of categorization is often contested, it appears, in any number of contexts. Involving people, even.
Making it subjective.
Like I said, Damn It! Pluto seemed nice enough.
Was I looking at your videos or Buckeye yesterday? I forget. Funny as hell.
I’ve not posted any video, so it must’ve been BT.
You don't think the Democrats has the Democrat National Convention in Denver last year for nothing, do you? As you can see, the pieces are starting to fit together nicely.
Every time I'm set to pick someone up at the Denver airport, I tell them to look for the aliens and send them one of the websites so they can see the subtle clues hidden in the floor tiles and the paintings on their way to baggage claim.
Did you know that there is a concentration camp under there, too, for when the New World Order comes and sends us all to live in under there?
And that there's probably a space port?
DIA Conspiracies Take Off (Westword)(^)
And that the 32 foot tall bright blue mustang with red laser eyes at the entrance to the airport killed its creator? This part is, amazingly, actually true.
A Horse of a Different Color Divides Denver (WSJ) (^)
What I want to know is: If the aliens have taken up residence under the airport, why can't they pay rent and bring down the cost of parking at DIA a bit?
You think the "official birth records" say that he is natural born citizen?
Don't know about you, but I've never seen that on a birth certificate.
In fact, the issue of natural born American status with regard to eligibility to be president has never been adjudicated in any court of law and the Constitution itself is mute on the issue.
So why do you think you and Dr. Kukino know what it means, or will mean if a court rules on it? Hmmm?
Documents contemporary to the founding era indicate that BHO II is a natural born British Subject, because his father was a British subject. Vattel indicates that "naturales" are those born of citizen parents in the country, with an exception to the latter for those whose parents were serving the country but outside of it, at the time of their birth.
Blackstone: (1758) WHEN I fay, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this alfo muft be underftood with fome reftrictions. The common law indeed ftood abfolutely fo; with only a very few exceptions:...But by feveral more modern ftatutesb thefe reftrictions are ftill farther taken off: fo that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whofe fathers were natural-born fubjects, are now natural-born fubjects themfelves, to all intents and purpofes, without any exception; unlefs their faid fathers were attainted, or banifhed beyond fea, for high treafon; or were then in the fervice of a prince at enmity with Great Britain. (Original spelling and when he says "more modern statutes, he still means prior to the mid 1760s at the latest!) :))
Vattel:(also 1758, although the translation is newer, around 1852), the founders could mostly read French and didn't need the translation): The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. Section 217 has the exemption to "in the country" for those "born in the armies of the state."
And this from Joesph Story(1833):
§ 1471...It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country.... But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.
(Story was at the time a Justice of the Supreme Court, having been appointed by President Madison in 1812).
Sorry, real life intruded and sucked up my time. I’ll look at what you posted and see if a response is needed.
So far I’ve found the discussion rather silly and frustrating. It shouldn’t have been a big deal to postulate that a thing is, whether someone documents it or not. But some birthers seem to be unable to concede even a basic fundamental point of reality if they think it might be used to argue against them. Absurd.
It wasn’t my intent to spend much time on this tiny point. The intent was to move on quickly to the next. If even this little fundamental uncontroversial thing can’t be agreed on then it sure looks like trying to reason with certain birthers has to go out the window.
Yes, those are good examples of what I meant. Nobody would doubt that Pluto existed before anyone observed it. (Note: This is ignoring questions raised by quantum physics, I know, but it's good enough for our purposes.)
So something can BE without having been PROVED. What's the relevance? Only this.
The Constitution requires that the President BE a "natural born citizen", among other things. That passage does not say anything about proving it. It is violated only if the President is, as a matter of fact, not a natural born citizen. It is not violated if he simply hasn't proven it.
That does not mean there aren't other constitutional provisions which would call for validation, but that's another post. I have to go do something right now.
Great! We agree completely!
I can’t figure out how to force the issue but for sensing his COLB is flawed and needs to be tested, as he is the one who put it in the public realm.
Still, I have not figured out how to force even that.
Sounds like the premise:
if a tree falls in the forest, and
no one hears it, did it fall ?
I have no clue what such an obscure
premise as the “it is what it is” view
bears in regard to one’s age or a birth
certificate.
One’s birth certificate is a tangible, vital
legally recorded document, signifying important
data .. the proof of one’s arrival on earth, his
parentage, etc. and one which plays a mandatory
and significant verification for several key
occasions in a person’s life .. wherein which
the document must be shown to a govt. official.
Just telling the DMV guy you’re 16 and legal
to take the driving test and “it is what it
is” isn’t going to wash.
And by the way, the derision and contempt with
which you toss around the term ‘birthers’ because
some don’t accept your views at face value just
because you said so doesn’t wear well on one so
profuse in lawyerly and scholarly postings as you.
We’re all in a new ballpark here, seeking information,
theorizing, and there is a possibility of a case of
first impression, so there are no perfect experts...
period.
No one, not even one so lawyerly, knows what the
outcome will be.
Wonderful. We should. It's not really a controversial point.
See what happens when people actually try to understand each other?
lol.
Word!
I don’t think you need an MD degree to look at a document and read what it says
You think the “official birth records” say that he is natural born citizen?
Don’t know about you, but I’ve never seen that on a birth certificate.
In fact, the issue of natural born American status with regard to eligibility to be president has never been adjudicated in any court of law and the Constitution itself is mute on the issue.
So why do you think you and Dr. Kukino know what it means, or will mean if a court rules on it? Hmmm?
Documents contemporary to the founding era indicate that BHO II is a natural born British Subject, because his father was a British subject. Vattel indicates that “naturales” are those born of citizen parents in the country, with an exception to the latter for those whose parents were serving the country but outside of it, at the time of their birth.
Blackstone: (1758) WHEN I fay, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this alfo muft be underftood with fome reftrictions. The common law indeed ftood abfolutely fo; with only a very few exceptions:...But by feveral more modern ftatutesb thefe reftrictions are ftill farther taken off: fo that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whofe fathers were natural-born fubjects, are now natural-born fubjects themfelves, to all intents and purpofes, without any exception; unlefs their faid fathers were attainted, or banifhed beyond fea, for high treafon; or were then in the fervice of a prince at enmity with Great Britain. (Original spelling and when he says “more modern statutes, he still means prior to the mid 1760s at the latest!) :))
Vattel:(also 1758, although the translation is newer, around 1852), the founders could mostly read French and didn’t need the translation): The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. Section 217 has the exemption to “in the country” for those “born in the armies of the state.”
And this from Joesph Story(1833):
§ 1471...It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country.... But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.
(Story was at the time a Justice of the Supreme Court, having been appointed by President Madison in 1812).
“Pluto was demoted in January. I felt bad for Mickey Mouse and thought it was Goofy thing to do!”
You’re bad. Uncle Scrooge has declared that you are really are a Beagle Boy and now you must spend the night in the dog house.
;>D
Dang it. I wuz gonna be right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.